"White slut" not racial vilification?

I think it really comes down to whether or not racism and prejudice are acceptable or not. Either it is improper to call anyone names, or it isn't. If it is okay to do it to one group, you have no leg to stand on when your turn comes around. Of course, this line of thought is anathema to Al Sharpton.

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Unfortunately the situation the aborigines find themselves in today has it's beginnings with the intrusion of the white man into Australia.

I personally dont find this to be a big deal, a small price to pay for previous injustices so long as there lives improve to the point that we can all be judged by the same standard in the years to come.

Uh, here we go again. Another person that somehow believes two wrongs make it right. That treating an innocent person badly is OK if it "rights" something done (perhaps even a hundred years ago) by someone else to someone else. This attitude is so badly wrong it's not even funny. But I guess the believers of this BS can slink around safe in their belief - just as long as it doesn't affect them. Both hypocritical and cowardly.

Originally posted by riley
Many races seem to do this and it's starting to irritate me as well. I am against all forms of biggotry.. but that does not mean I'm willing to bare the brunt of other peoples' complexes.

Amen to that riley No one deserves to be discriminated against, but no one deserves to put up with abuse from other people just because they have been wronged in the past.

The thing is.. that was the Catholic church more than australians themsleves [they've been doing it for a millenia]. There have been many other people that have recieved the same brutal treatment at the church's hands. The church should be held accountable.. not innocent people.

The church did do a lot, though there were some pretty horrible cases of the state based forces removing children rather forcefully. It was not a proud moment for australia.

Perhaps they could move them to the self imposed 'dry' communities? Surely they have some sort of shelters?

Perhaps not. It would be better than the kids running away to the city to become addicts.

See therein lies the problem though, as soon as the government moves the kids to these communities the usual loonie left suspects will be screaming "stolen generation" and we will have all of the same problems all over again.

Personally I think they should just bite the bullet and move them to where they will be safe - but it is an election year...

Originally posted by hogtie
I think it really comes down to whether or not racism and prejudice are acceptable or not. Either it is improper to call anyone names, or it isn't.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about Hogtie, double standards. It cant be one way for one group, and another way for another group.

Thanks Ezekiel.

I think it is a clever strategy, and if ever there was a conspiracy, I think this is it. Lots of folks benefit from devisiveness, especially those who want to generate and keep a group of constituants. The more and more I learn, there are more differences in class than there are in race. If you make race the issue, the classes can't unite to start focusing on the real problems.

Go Wallabies!

Originally posted by Ezekiel
Amen to that riley

No one deserves to be discriminated against, but no one deserves to put up with abuse from other people just because they have been wronged in the past.

It's a never ending cycle.

The church did do a lot, though there were some pretty horrible cases of the state based forces removing children rather forcefully. It was not a proud moment for australia.

I agree completely.. but the church and state were acting on behalf of eachother much of the time [back then anyway]. It amazes me that these kids were taken to have a 'better life'.. in orphanages that were already brutalising kids. I think the attitude was if something looked civilised it 'was'. Illusion is everything and so long as the kids were seen going to church every Sunday it didn't matter what was done to them behind closed doors.
BTW. I still think John Howard should have apologised on behalf of the government.

See therein lies the problem though, as soon as the government moves the kids to these communities the usual loonie left suspects will be screaming "stolen generation" and we will have all of the same problems all over again.

I'm not so sure.. if aboriginal communities took it upon themselves to give the kids a safe house then they would be answering to eachother. As it is they have their own tribal laws so I think they are quite capable of picking up the pieces from other townships. I also think the 'dry' communities are a brilliant idea and I'm hoping this trend will spread.

Personally I think they should just bite the bullet and move them to where they will be safe - but it is an election year...

There has so be an answer to this.. problem is polititians think fixing a problem means throwing money at without any actual thought behind it.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by hogtie
Thanks Ezekiel.

No, thank you for contributing to my thread mate

I think it is a clever strategy, and if ever there was a conspiracy, I think this is it. Lots of folks benefit from devisiveness, especially those who want to generate and keep a group of constituants. The more and more I learn, there are more differences in class than there are in race. If you make race the issue, the classes can't unite to start focusing on the real problems.

I couldnt agree more. If you look at John Howard, he is the master of Wedge politics. That would probably be the only thing I really dont like about him. He is very good at dividing people on an issue (ie. children overboard) and making the sides very clear, but not very clear. (If that makes sense).

He gives people the feeling of a very clear choice. However, sometimes people dont really understand the choice they are making.

Go Wallabies!

Bummer about the South Africa game We havent won there since 54 or something?

Originally posted by riley
I agree completely.. but the church and state were acting on behalf of eachother much of the time [back then anyway]. It amazes me that these kids were taken to have a 'better life'.. in orphanages that were already brutalising kids. I think the attitude was if something looked civilised it 'was'. Illusion is everything and so long as the kids were seen going to church every Sunday it didn't matter what was done to them behind closed doors.

So true, perception is the big winner. If something looks right and proper, people will generally believe it to be so. Especially in those days when people were less critical of the church.

BTW. I still think John Howard should have apologised on behalf of the government.

Hmmm I dont think an apology would have been appropriate, more like a statement of regret and an undertaking that the same atrocities would never again be committed.

An apology indicates responsibility, and John Howard and his government were not responsible for the past.

I'm not so sure.. if aboriginal communities took it upon themselves to give the kids a safe house then they would be answering to eachother. As it is they have their own tribal laws so I think they are quite capable of picking up the pieces from other townships. I also think the 'dry' communities are a brilliant idea and I'm hoping this trend will spread.

Point taken, if the Aboriginal communites were involved it would be a much better outcome.

Dry communities are great, I did a tour of some with the Senator i used to work with (until recently) and the people there are really great. Its a pity they are so far from the urban areas or more people could see what a benefit they are.

There has so be an answer to this.. problem is polititians think fixing a problem means throwing money at without any actual thought behind it.

The only answer will be doing what is right for the children - and fast. You've probably noticed thats its no longer in the newspapers and people have already forgotten about it.

Originally posted by Ezekiel
I couldnt agree more. If you look at John Howard, he is the master of Wedge politics. That would probably be the only thing I really dont like about him. He is very good at dividing people on an issue (ie. children overboard) and making the sides very clear, but not very clear. (If that makes sense).

He's a master at it.. when he's up to something.. a couple of days [or weeks] previous he'll either say or do something controvercial and put a non issue on the front page of every newspaper and then while everyones distracted he'll go for the throat. I'm pretty sure he even did that with the GST.. though I can't remember for the life of me what it was. Republic referendum perhaps? Anyway.. people were protesting it but he gave them more than one thing to concentrate on and to panic over. The hand is faster than the eye. Even in question time.. he'll get asked a very valid question.. use a very quiet tone when avoiding it.. then start yelling when he starts comparing it to 'but when labour was in office' [ten years ago now? How long is he going to use that one?].
"Just answer the bloody question!" How frustrating.

He gives people the feeling of a very clear choice. However, sometimes people dont really understand the choice they are making.

The gun or the knife?

[edit on 15-9-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by centurion1211
Uh, here we go again. Another person that somehow believes two wrongs make it right. That treating an innocent person badly is OK if it "rights" something done (perhaps even a hundred years ago) by someone else to someone else. This attitude is so badly wrong it's not even funny. But I guess the believers of this BS can slink around safe in their belief - just as long as it doesn't affect them. Both hypocritical and cowardly.

As a matter of fact mate i come from an area of Australia where these injustices to aboriginal australians are still occuring.
I have first hand knowledge of what is still happening in these area's. Do you. So it not only happened !00 yrs ago, it is happening today.
And i've never slinked anywhere or engaged in BS because these things do still affect me and my children.
As for being a hypocrite and a coward, well you dont know me or where i grew up so i couldnt really give a stuff if you think of me that way.

Have a nice day in your ivory tower.

[edit on 15/9/06 by mojo4sale]

Originally posted by riley
I'm not so sure.. if aboriginal communities took it upon themselves to give the kids a safe house then they would be answering to eachother. As it is they have their own tribal laws so I think they are quite capable of picking up the pieces from other townships. I also think the 'dry' communities are a brilliant idea and I'm hoping this trend will spread.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by riley]

Problem with the dry communities is that alcohol is now not a major problem with the youth's, but still mainly with the older generations.
The younger aborigines are now sniffing petrol to get high and taking other illicit drugs. Do we ban petrol from these area's too. Where does it stop.
Being banished to rural dry communities doesnt solve the root cause, though some of the elders are noting benefits for the older members of the communities.

Its true that there seems to be double standards applied in some cases, the guilt factor as mentioned earlier, but the root cause is the lack of effective government influence (from both party's) from programs that actually work.
Banishment and incarceration just do not work and in most cases just create recidivists and more resentment.
I certainly dont know the answer, but what we have now has been tried previously and has failed.

Originally posted by mojo4sale
As a matter of fact mate i come from an area of Australia where these injustices to aboriginal australians are still occuring.
I have first hand knowledge of what is still happening in these area's. Do you. So it not only happened !00 yrs ago, it is happening today.

You still don't get it. And I don't have to be "there" to really understand the concepts. After all, we've got people here that want whites to pay so-called reparations to blacks for slavery that ended almost 150 years ago. Never mind that there's no way to sort out the decendents of the 'guilty' and the 'wronged' from the millions of blacks and whites and their decendents that arrived in the U.S. after slavery ended. But that's a subject perhaps for another thread.

Argue all you want, but it's still wrong for an innocent to have to "pay" for the injustices of others. Doesn't matter if it was 100 years ago or right now, it's still wrong.

Speaking of ivory towers, that's exactly where I'd expect to find someone that believes as you do that you can decide it's OK for an innocent person to suffer "for the sake of justice". What gives you the right to decide such things? Just because you live nearby?

Totally elitist and what a crock ...

[edit on 9/15/2006 by centurion1211]

Getting back to the topic of racial vilification laws...

Originally posted by Ezekiel
I think that you really need to understand the context and the environment here in WA, especially in places like Kalgoorlie and my home town (also in the Midwest). In towns like the one I grew up in, if you made even the slightest remarkt that could be construed as racist ie. "piss off you black bastard" - you were branded as a racist for the rest of your life. Everywhere you went there would be aboriginal people slinging insults, rocks and even fists at you.
[...]
The police would never do anything about it - because all they could was slap them on the wrist and put them back ont he street.

Okay, so what is really the problem here? Let's say tomorrow all racial insults were magically removed from language. They would find something else to call you while they harassed you. The problem here isn't racial insults or slurs, it is the violence and the inability or unwillingness of law enforcement and the judicial system to control that violence. Making it illegal to use racial slurs is NOT going to solve this problem.

For the judge to throw this out was huge, because for so long groups of aboriginal people have been intimidating and bullying whoever they felt like and getting away with it. The decision to say "OH no calling her a white slut was ok" is basically saying "Go for it - abuse the white people who dont give you a cigarette or a dollar, we dont mind" when the message they needed to send was that they should show respect for the people who pay taxes, which ends up in their welfare check each Thursday morning.

I understand and agree with the goal that you want achieved here, but I completely disagree with the method. Add another one to the list here: You cannot legislate respect, you cannot control language or thought. You are saying that if she called her a "stupid fat C", that's okay, but if she called her a "white bitch", then it should be illegal. You see the conundrum here? And the conundrum exists because the focus is on the language rather than the behaviour and the real problem: the violence.

Again I agree with you, you cant legislate political correctness - however you can punish someone for behaviour that is unacceptable to set an example for the rest of the community.

Behaviour, sure. Language, no. It's impossible. It's like banning the colour gray because you have an elephant problem.



[edit on 2006-9-15 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Argue all you want, but it's still wrong for an innocent to have to "pay" for the injustices of others. Doesn't matter if it was 100 years ago or right now, it's still wrong.

Innocents are paying for injustices all around the world as we speak, in fact there are alot dying in Iraq in a war at the moment that you probably support.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Speaking of ivory towers, that's exactly where I'd expect to find someone that believes as you do that you can decide it's OK for an innocent person to suffer "for the sake of justice". What gives you the right to decide such things? Just because you live nearby?

Totally elitist and what a crock ...

[edit on 9/15/2006 by centurion1211]

I didnt decide anything, a judge did in this particular case, i'm just giving my opinion because i've lived in an area that is still suffering from decisions made by predominately white govts both previously and now . I dont have the right to decide such things neither do you. So what!!

[edit on 15/9/06 by mojo4sale]

Originally posted by riley
I'm pretty sure he even did that with the GST.. though I can't remember for the life of me what it was. Republic referendum perhaps?
Anyway.. people were protesting it but he gave them more than one thing to concentrate on and to panic over.

John Howard actually took the GST to an election in 1998, so if people didnt want a GST all they had to do was vote for Labor. The republic referendum you mentioned was held in 1999.

I think that hes just been lucky to have gone up against some VERY shocking Labor leaders in the past 10 years. Mark Latham for example.

The hand is faster than the eye. Even in question time.. he'll get asked a very valid question.. use a very quiet tone when avoiding it.. then start yelling when he starts comparing it to 'but when labour was in office' [ten years ago now? How long is he going to use that one?].
"Just answer the bloody question!"

How frustrating.

Hehe yeah Ive noticed that a lot of Government ministers will do their very best to avoid directly answering the questions asked by the opposition. They are very good at skirting just close enough to the issue but not saying anything of substance. Again, this government has relied on Labor being completely useless over the past 10 years and love to ram that home every chance they get.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Getting back to the topic of racial vilification laws...

Okay, so what is really the problem here? Let's say tomorrow all racial insults were magically removed from language. They would find something else to call you while they harassed you. The problem here isn't racial insults or slurs, it is the violence and the inability or unwillingness of law enforcement and the judicial system to control that violence. Making it illegal to use racial slurs is NOT going to solve this problem.

Ive never said that I had a problem with the legislation or wanting make racial slurs illegal - my problem is the double standard that applies in our society.

For an aboriginal to call a white person a "white slut" has just been given the ok by a Magistrate. However were the tables turned, the white person would be vilified and viewed and represented as a racist!

I agree that you cant legislate respect, however they have tried to do it - now they have make sure there is not a double standard when it comes to enforcing the laws.

I understand and agree with the goal that you want achieved here, but I completely disagree with the method. Add another one to the list here: You cannot legislate respect, you cannot control language or thought. You are saying that if she called her a "stupid fat C", that's okay, but if she called her a "white bitch", then it should be illegal. You see the conundrum here? And the conundrum exists because the focus is on the language rather than the behaviour and the real problem: the violence.

As mentioned above, I dont think you can legislate respect and thought, however the government has tried to do that - now they have to make sure that they do not set a double standard in punishing people for breaking the law.

Do I think the laws are stupid? YES I do!

You are 100% correct, the problem is the violence but it will not be solved or helped by making one rule for the white citizens and one rule for the black citizens with regard to other laws. It only further seperates the two and leads to resentment which in turn will lead to violence.

Behaviour, sure. Language, no. It's impossible. It's like banning the colour gray because you have an elephant problem.

Language is part of behavior, if your child is swearing in public would you not consider them to be behaving badly?

I still stand by my comment that you need to set an example with these kinds of people so they know that they need to smarten up their act and start showing respect to other members of their communities.

Originally posted by riley
So do you think it's okay that I have been assaulted for being a white woman? [had a large rock hit me]. A couple of years ago I had a friend who was renedered infertile because she was pack raped for being a white chick [the Sydney ones.. though it never went to court]. They used 'objects' which cut her up.. she almost bled to death. So.. given you think racial slurs are funny.. do you think this funny as well..? They're just extreams of eachother. You should be ashamed.

How dare them call you names, you poor dears. I hope you can recover from that. Oh for the good old days, eh? When whites could treat the people whose land they stole with impunity.

Exuse me but NO ONE has condoned what YOU refer to as 'the good old days'.

And to think that some of them got angry over it. White people crying foul when they get a taste of their own medicine.

An eye for an eye eh?
And again history repeats.

Here's a thought, how about giving them their land back? It could help.

In fact they have got land rights. :shk:

[edit on 15-9-2006 by riley]

First, I am not ashamed. I actually am on your side, I just found the posts complaining about discrimination against whites to be very ignorant. It is just like here in Canada, except the whites are upset when First Nations are given special rights, which are technically racial discrimination. The whites feel that the Natives should just get over it, and they don't feel they are obligated to compensate them for their losses. I disagree, and find their views at the very least greedy, and at worst, criminal. I am white, and my fiance is First Nations, while previous to that I was in a relationship with a black woman. They have taught me a lot about racism. I find most whites have not got a clue about what the reality of generations long, daily, mistreatment, discrimination, and bias is like for the victims. I detest slurs, but I do consider them much less harmful than a rock to the head, rape, or murder. Did you know that here in Canada, a Native woman is 5 times as likely to be murdered as a white woman is? And that they also constitute the poorest demographic in the country with an average annual income that is 1/3 of what is considered the poverty line?
I have heard the expression ' the good old days', used by a South African, in the presence of my black partner, referring to apartheid. It is not that uncommon a sentiment.
I know little about the state of affairs in Australia, most of it I heard from an aunt of mine who has lived there for over 20 years. She described a very sad tale, which has amounted to virtual genocide. She is a teacher, and told me there are not enough elders left alive to teach the knowledge of the old ways to the younger generation, so that much of their culture is likely to be lost forever.
When I hear cries of reverse discrimination, I almost always find out that they don't know what they are talking about, and if they cared to look at the statistics they would see that they are actually getting preferential treatment in the vast majority of the cases. I don't find racial slurs funny, but admit that I occasionally can't help but chuckle at the outrage I hear expressed when people who have been treated horribly for generations use them to express their disgust towards the people who benefitted from their abuse and theft.
In Canada, racism is alive and well, it has only gone underground and is mostly covert when it used to be overt when it was not made illegal to do so. The laws haven't stopped it, they have just made it harder to be racist. It is amazing how many whites don't want to make reparations for the terrible actions of their forebears, which they have benefitted from.
If I get called a racial slur, it doesn't bother me in the least. It bothered my previous partner, understandably since it reminded her daily that she is treated worse based on her skin colour. If I came across a bit strong it is because this is a bit of a hot button issue for me. And as far as land rights in Australia go, I was just going on the information I had, which is that there had not been any treaties signed with the Aborigines at all. I may have gotten bad information, do you know?

Until the descendents of those people who were so criminally violated feel that they have been treated fairly, and that efforts have been sincerely made to try to repay them for their losses (which can never be repaid, imo), there will be discontent. I could go on, but I hope that clarifies my previous posts abrasive nature.

Originally posted by Ezekiel
You are 100% correct, the problem is the violence but it will not be solved or helped by making one rule for the white citizens and one rule for the black citizens with regard to other laws. It only further seperates the two and leads to resentment which in turn will lead to violence.

Right, so we're in agreement. But personally I advocate that these laws be scrapped completely, not that they be applied evenly. Small ideological difference, but we're on the same page.

Language is part of behavior, if your child is swearing in public would you not consider them to be behaving badly?

Sure. But would you take the child to court for swearing?

[edit on 2006-9-16 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by mazzroth
Yeah mate I heard it on the radio on the way to work and its sickening to see racism only goes one way. We are surely lucky that our aboriginal population continually wars with itself as this directs alot if its violent nature away from the white communities, this may sound racist but its a fact as I have just witnessed major family feuding in a town next to mine.

Iv seen it come from white aussies too though..
they dont say it to there face because they fear of the law.
The government has done nothing possitive for these people at all, now they are planing on moving all the poor people from redfern to the western suberbs...this is going to make things alot worse for the people out west as wel as in the east.
I see a revolt happening anytime soon

Originally posted by Ezekiel
You are 100% correct, the problem is the violence but it will not be solved or helped by making one rule for the white citizens and one rule for the black citizens with regard to other laws. It only further seperates the two and leads to resentment which in turn will lead to violence.

That is the ideal situation, and certainly a goal worth pursuing. But, if you don't legislate and enforce a policy that ensures there is some form of restitution for past mistreatment, what do you do instead?
It isn't good enough to just say, okay, now we will wipe the slate clean, everyone gets equal treatment, and all is forgotten. We must find a way to show an effort at trying to compensate people who have historically been exploited, abused, mistreated, robbed, and murdered.
I realize that many whites are outraged that they be asked to pay anything for something they didn't do. But if we don't, who will? If you stole my house and after we died, my son approached your son and demanded our house back, what should your son do? I say he owes something. Temporarily, it seems to me that it is becoming clear that in order to try to balance the inequities, policies favouring the previously outcast are going to be necessary. It wouldn't be an issue if the whites were genuinely sorry, and doing all they could to repay their fathers crimes, but they are not. They are doing a bit, under duress, against their will, because the lawmakers are forcing them to. Thats not going to cut it.



[Mod Edit: Corrected quote attribution.]

[edit on 2006-9-16 by wecomeinpeace]